Forum
  Classifieds
  News
  Localband
  Shows
  Show Pics
  Polls

  OT Threads
  Other News
  Movies
  VideoGames
  Videos
  TV
  Sports
  Gear
  /r/
  Food

  New Thread
  New Poll

E-mail

New site? Maybe some day.

Username:

SPAM Filter: re-type this

(values are 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E, or F)

Message:

UBB enabled. HTML disabled Spam Filtering enabledIcons: (click image to insert) Show All - pop

b i u add: url image video(?)

:	post by ShadowSD at 2006-03-25 12:53:51

PatMeebles said:

Al Gore was more hardline on Iraq than Bush was. If Al Gore were elected, we would be in Iraq anyway.

I honestly don't believe there is any evidence to suggest that anyone other than neo-cons intended a regime change in Iraq; if there is, I'd love to see it, as I watched all the debates in 2000 plus extensive news coverage and was quite up to date with the positions of both candidates. (Besides, if that's what Democrats really wanted, why were Clinton's late 90's Iraq airstrikes so focused in scope; he had eight years to overthrow Hussein and made not the slightest effort)

PatMeebles said:

ShadowSD said:

Many people in Iran feel the exact same way about Ahmadinejad

Didn't the elections turnout not even pass 30%?

I said many, not most.

(Low turnouts in Iran should be no surprise in any case, as the President and his branch of government cannot really do much at all without the approval of the Supreme Leader and his branch of government; in otherwords, the Ayatollahs/Mulas, who hold all the real power).

PatMeebles said:

Interesting article. But Ahmadinejad still wants to wipe Isreal off the map. As to why the media doesn't report this, I don't know.

The media has reported nothing but that about Iran, which is the problem; the article I found is a diamond in the rough. It shows that challenging Zionism (a political philosophy which is a danger to America, Israel, and the entire free world in general, because it is a constant catalyst for and reinforcement of the jihadist terrorist threat) is a very different thing from Anti-Semitism, which is an ugly disgusting predujice that is sadly and unwittingly strengthened when exploited for political points by Zionists. The greatest irony of such exploitation is that many of the most influential Zionists in American policy are actually Christians who believe that scripture should guide policy (which is exactly what the jihadists believe, thus validating and reinforcing their viewpoint from the other side of the mirror).

If you (or anyone else reading this) doubt any of this, read the following article in (published in Haaretz Israel News, no less) and prepare to be amazed:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/695227.html

PatMeebles said:

What I don't buy is that we forced democracy down their throats. The barrel of the gun wasn't turned on them to force voting... We didn't force the Sunnis to participate. They finally realized that it's much better for everyone if they participate democratically.

Sure, and that part is great. But we BEGAN with the barrel of a gun, invading a fascist state, overthrowing it's leader, and externally introducing the idea of democracy. That's what I take issue with, because of the tens of thousand of innocent civilians our army killed to achieve this. When we had a Revolutionary War, how many innocent civilians were killed? Although most minutemen were regular citizens and not soldiers, they CHOSE to fight for their freedom. That's the difference between an internal democratic revolution, and an attempt to facilitate democracy externally: the amount of innocent life lost before the process even has a chance of succeeding.

If we don't hold innocent civilians in the highest regard, we lose moral ground in condemning 9/11. And losing that moral ground is something NO American wants to accept.

PatMeebles said:

ShadowSD said:

Can you name one time in history democracy has successfully been imposed to replace fascist laws and dogma? Anytime in human history a culture has tried to unilaterally interfere with a less developed society, the results were invariably disasterous.

Japan. And yes, we controlled it by ourselves.

Only after the deaths of more innocent civilians than had ever been slaughtered by a democracy in documented history. If that is the best example for imposing democracy, I can already feel that moral ground slipping out from under us...

PatMeebles said:

Actually, I have to completely disagree with the idea of being a Bin Laden automatically meaning a connection with AQ. Just look at his niece, who was doing nudie pictures in a bathtub (well, nudity by OBL's standards). Bin Laden's family is vast, and they have disowned him. It's a tangent, but Zarqawi's tribe has also disowned him.

That's the problem with tangential reasoning, as I said, there's plenty to disagree with. (I could have thrown another tangent at you too: the fact that, in addition to Osama Bin Laden, 19 of the 20 9/11 hijackers were also Saudi Arabian; that sounds a lot more damning than any tangential reasoning suggested about a Hussein/Al Quaeda connection.)

PatMeebles said:

ShadowSD said:

The 9/11 hijackers did their flight training in the US, so they were using US planes to train, and this is undisputed (unlike the Salmon Pak claims) Does that in and of itself make our government responsible?

Once again, no, because this was all done to attack us.

So therefore, by this logic, if Al Qaeda had intentions of attacking Iraq, then no terrorist training in that country can be blamed on Saddam Hussein's government. The problem is, it is much less painless to come up with evidence to suggest that Al Qaeda hated what it perceived as Saddam Hussein's secular regime than it is to come up with evidence of collusion between the two.

[default homepage]

[print][

6:31:59am Apr 30,2024
load time 0.00803 secs/10 queries]

[search]

[refresh page]